Pharmacist

The appeal was dismissed because the petitioner failed to meet at least three of the ten evidentiary criteria for extraordinary ability. Specifically, the AAO found that the petitioner did not demonstrate receipt of nationally or internationally recognized awards for excellence, provide properly translated published material about himself, or prove participation as a judge of others' work (public consultations were not considered judging). Furthermore, the petitioner did not establish authorship of scholarly articles or a leading/critical role for an organization with a distinguished reputation. The decision emphasized that the petitioner did not show sustained national or international acclaim required for the classification.

The appeal was dismissed because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate eligibility for at least three of the ten extraordinary ability criteria. For 'original contributions of major significance', USCIS found her work original but lacked evidence of major impact on the field, noting that citations alone (e.g., two papers with more than 28 citations out of nine published) did not inherently prove major significance, especially when expert letters failed to delineate field-wide impact. The AAO also noted that her research on auranofin, while original, was later found to lead to life-threatening conditions in subsequent studies, diminishing its positive contribution. For 'leading or critical role', the Petitioner failed to provide independent, objective evidence establishing the distinguished reputation of her employer as of the filing date, relying instead on self-promotional material and post-filing evidence. The AAO also rejected post-filing evidence for establishing initial eligibility.